the american dream is based on marxism..

[danyboy27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

The term means simply that each worker in a socialist society receives wages and benefits according to the quantity and value of the labor that he or she contributed

or, if you translate that in hard working american cappie language:

if you work more, you get more, and you can buy more stuff.

if you work long enough you can have your own car, house, tv , Ipod etc etc.

bottom line, the american dream have big marxist connotations.

[RGacky3]

How about "sieze the day" does that have marxist connotations?
Or what about True love? or love at first sight?

[danyboy27]

How about "sieze the day" does that have marxist connotations?
Or what about True love? or love at first sight?

i dont understand

[RGacky3]

My point is the "american dream" is nothing more than a fairy tale catch phrase, and thus its pointless to look at where it comes from or what its related to because its just a nice slogal.

[danyboy27]

My point is the "american dream" is nothing more than a fairy tale catch phrase, and thus its pointless to look at where it comes from or what its related to because its just a nice slogal.

but this slogan have been mainly associated with opportunity and the possibility to earn more in order to aquire more good.

i am just pointing out that this slogan and its features are not the sole invention or property of capitalism.

[Widerstand]

This is capitalist according to the page you linked:

"The principle is ultimately a stowaway from capitalism that, according to Marx, will vanish as work becomes more automated and enjoyable, and goods become available in abundance."

[danyboy27]

This is capitalist according to the page you linked:

"The principle is ultimately a stowaway from capitalism that, according to Marx, will vanish as work becomes more automated and enjoyable, and goods become available in abundance."

but it still compatible with marxism.

[Dean]

but it still compatible with marxism.

No more than capitalism, which is also a necessary stage according to the Marxist system.

[RGacky3]

but this slogan have been mainly associated with opportunity and the possibility to earn more in order to aquire more good.

i am just pointing out that this slogan and its features are not the sole invention or property of capitalism.

Yeah, but thats as significant as saying "love your nieghbor as yourself," "you will reap what you sow" is not the sole invention of christianity, the point is its a non-issue.

The "American dream" is something that most people laugh at, and for good reason, its just a dumb slogan that used to be used to try and put a good face on capitalism, they don't use it anymore, but who cares, its a non issue.

[Bud Struggle]

No more than capitalism, which is also a necessary stage according to the Marxist system.

Yea, but I think dany makes an interesting point. "History" points toward Marxism. The American system, the American dream IS the Marxist dream, imperfect, flawed but definitely more egalitarian than that which came before it. Me the son of immigrants and a son of (real) workers can live the High Life. I don't laugh at it, (but then again I have the cujones to make it :D ) Now we just need to extend that life everyone and we have the Communist ideal.

dany's tapped into something.

[RGacky3]

The American system, the American dream IS the Marxist dream, imperfect, flawed but definitely more egalitarian than that which came before it.

The American system is one of the most unegalitarian in the WORLD, from Norway to Bolivia to Japan to Austrailia are all more egalitarian than the United states.

The United states is less democratic than the vast majority of western countries (as in real public control over public life, as opposed to tyrannical control), so .... No.


Me the son of immigrants and a son of (real) workers can live the High Life. I don't laugh at it, (but then again I have the cujones to make it :D ) Now we just need to extend that life everyone and we have the Communist ideal.


Most of everyone is the sun of (real) workers, also cojones have nothing to do with making it, also, if you could squeeze all the smugness out of you it would fill barrells.

About extending that life to everyone, its called revolution and democratizing the economy, unless you have another solution, thats even half serious, give it here.

[danyboy27]

Yea, but I think dany makes an interesting point. "History" points toward Marxism. The American system, the American dream IS the Marxist dream, imperfect, flawed but definitely more egalitarian than that which came before it. Me the son of immigrants and a son of (real) workers can live the High Life. I don't laugh at it, (but then again I have the cujones to make it :D ) Now we just need to extend that life everyone and we have the Communist ideal.

dany's tapped into something.

what i meant was, that the image people made themselves of the american dream in the 60s that so fews people enjoyed was one of the initial phase toward communism marx envisionned.

[Bud Struggle]

what i meant was, that the image people made themselves of the american dream in the 60s that so fews people enjoyed was one of the initial phase toward communism marx envisionned.

Yea. It was step one.

[danyboy27]

Yea. It was step one.

no, it was step 2, step 1 was taking back the mean of production thru revolution.

just to be clear i dont think any real effort have been made voluntarly or not in the us to go toward a more egalitarian society.

what i was saying is that, what everyone want in life, more specificly the american lifestyle of those who are lucky enough to get it, could be our without the luck factor.

[RGacky3]

what i meant was, that the image people made themselves of the american dream in the 60s that so fews people enjoyed was one of the initial phase toward communism marx envisionned.

No it was'nt it was a slogal used by propegandists ....


what i was saying is that, what everyone want in life, more specificly the american lifestyle of those who are lucky enough to get it, could be our without the luck factor.

THeres nothing American about it, everyone wants a comfortable life. This American exceptionalism works when you discount the rest of the world, otherwise its rediculous.

[MarxSchmarx]

THeres nothing American about it, everyone wants a comfortable life. This American exceptionalism works when you discount the rest of the world, otherwise its rediculous.

Well, it is "American" in the sense that it is predicated on mass production, fordism, and the availability of space for the expansion of new residential developments consisting of single family homes. In the mid-20th century, these were in fact ubiquitous for the most part only in North America.



The American system is one of the most unegalitarian in the WORLD, from Norway to Bolivia to Japan to Austrailia are all more egalitarian than the United states.

Bolivia?? That's one of the most unequal countries in the entire world, whilst US is in the middle of the pack.
http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/economics-business/variable-353.html

[ZeroNowhere]

This is capitalist according to the page you linked:

"The principle is ultimately a stowaway from capitalism that, according to Marx, will vanish as work becomes more automated and enjoyable, and goods become available in abundance."
No, because "content and form are changed."

[RGacky3]

Bolivia?? That's one of the most unequal countries in the entire world, whilst US is in the middle of the pack.
http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/econ...iable-353.html (http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/economics-business/variable-353.html)

Your right, but the movements toward more democracy there is way more advanced than in the US. In Bolivia people are actually making real changes democratically?


Well, it is "American" in the sense that it is predicated on mass production, fordism, and the availability of space for the expansion of new residential developments consisting of single family homes. In the mid-20th century, these were in fact ubiquitous for the most part only in North America.


Fordism?
Mass production was way before the US, I don't think most of europe is lacking for space either to build residential places. There is really nothing fundementally exceptional about the US, of coarse there are different circumastances, but then again thats true about all countries.

[MarxSchmarx]

Your right, but the movements toward more democracy there is way more advanced than in the US. In Bolivia people are actually making real changes democratically?


I haven't kept up with the situation on the ground in Bolivia. The problem the Morales regime faces is that there are serious criticisms of their methods from both the right and left, leaving their "democratic changes" a hodgepodge of alliances of convenience. As best I can gather, the central government has managed to build something of an opposition to the local elite, but whether this trickles down to the rural areas remains to be seen. To the extent that what little progress they have made is "making real changes democratically", that is true throughout most of Latin America.




Fordism?
Mass production was way before the US, I don't think most of europe is lacking for space either to build residential places. There is really nothing fundementally exceptional about the US, of coarse there are different circumastances, but then again thats true about all countries.

Well urbanization and mechanized agriculture more specifically was further advanced in America than just about any other major country prior to WWII. Another difference was that in the mid-20th century, most of Europe and East Asia's industrial capacities were decimated. Fordism was only practical in the one industrial region that had been largely untouched by the war - North America.

[Raúl Duke]

The issue with the American Dream is that at an individual level it can mean anything that the person considers or conotates with being successful.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The issue with the American Dream is that at an individual level it can mean anything that the person considers or conotates with being successful.

The other problem with the American Dream is that it is individual.

Before the Depression of the 1930s when urbanites in the country were still the minority (I think in the 30s it was about 50% urban and 50% rural), the American Dream was typically the idea of being a self-sufficient small landowner.

The Great Depression destroyed this myth.

Since WWII, the American Dream has been, for most, the idea of being able to have a home, stable income, and not being beholden to others.

I think when people look back at our time they will say that the "great recession" disabused people from this myth.

But aside from the "privatized" aspect of the American Dream, I don't think the essential desires are bad or incompatible with Marxism. I also want for myself and everyone to not be beholden to others (no rent or mortgage or debt hanging over my head) - to not have to worry about obtaining necessities - to be able to have free-time to spend as I wish and freedom to be able to travel and do enjoyable things (concerts, movies, and other entertainment).

But the American Dream is a myth because capitalism can not prosper if everyone has stability and a home or their own land to farm - the system would collapse if people had these things because capitalism needs a workforce to exploit and it needs inequality and it needs to be able to turn our individual lives upside down in order to keep the economy flexible and responsive to whatever is profitable (i.e. it needs to be able to lay us off or destroy industries in order to put capital to different use).

[RGacky3]

Well urbanization and mechanized agriculture more specifically was further advanced in America than just about any other major country prior to WWII. Another difference was that in the mid-20th century, most of Europe and East Asia's industrial capacities were decimated. Fordism was only practical in the one industrial region that had been largely untouched by the war - North America.

Yeah, thats material conditions, but that does'nt mean, first of all that the "American dream" was something wide spread amungst americans, or that it was'nt amung other peoples.

[danyboy27]

anyway, what i meant is, what a lot american refers has the american dream is more likely to remain a dream in a capitalist system than in a communist one, where that dream is more likely to become common for everyone.

i started this discussion beccause i often hear on the radio the whole american system, american dream argument, that what people are spoonfed with by the media, that if you work more, work harder, you can have your own stuff, your own house etc etc etc.

i think its important to keep in mind that this whole concept of dream, what most north american desire is fully compatible with marxism.

beat them with their own weapon.

Next time someone start to argument against communism and talk about that whole concept of american dream, you could just answer: well, that exactly what marx said!

[Bud Struggle]

Since WWII, the American Dream has been, for most, the idea of being able to have a home, stable income, and not being beholden to others.

I think when people look back at our time they will say that the "great recession" disabused people from this myth. I don't know if that is quite true. The "great recession" is affecting about 10% of the American people. The rest really didn't notice it happened. Some people did loose their jobs and were hit with problems, to be sure and those that "overbought" in the Real Estate market were sometimes caught in financial difficulty but for most people the "Recession" was just some stories in the news paper.


But aside from the "privatized" aspect of the American Dream, I don't think the essential desires are bad or incompatible with Marxism. I also want for myself and everyone to not be beholden to others (no rent or mortgage or debt hanging over my head) - to not have to worry about obtaining necessities - to be able to have free-time to spend as I wish and freedom to be able to travel and do enjoyable things (concerts, movies, and other entertainment). All that is eminently achievable in America today. It takes hard work and time. Home ownership has actually been increasing since the 1960s*


But the American Dream is a myth because capitalism can not prosper if everyone has stability and a home or their own land to farm - the system would collapse if people had these things because capitalism needs a workforce to exploit and it needs inequality and it needs to be able to turn our individual lives upside down in order to keep the economy flexible and responsive to whatever is profitable (i.e. it needs to be able to lay us off or destroy industries in order to put capital to different use). 2/3s of the population owning theor own home isn't that bad in any society. Job stability is a problem--but as the market changes old jobs gow away, but new ones are added. One of the problems with guarenteed jobs is that it doesn't conform to changes in the market and slows and ossifies growth and innovation. While there might be individual problems with that pattern--it helps society as a whole grow and expand.



*From Wiki: The homeownership rate in the United States in 2008 remained similar to that in other post-industrial nations with 67.8% of all occupied housing units being occupied by the unit's owner. Home ownership rates vary depending on demographic characteristics of households such as ethnicity, race, type of household as well as location and type of settlement. Since 1960, the homeownership rate in the United States has remained relatively stable having increased 6.8% since 1960 when 62.1% of American households owned their own home.

[mikelepore]

This is capitalist according to the page you linked:

"The principle is ultimately a stowaway from capitalism that, according to Marx, will vanish as work becomes more automated and enjoyable, and goods become available in abundance."

As work becomes more automated, products become more abundant. That is just the a principle of using tools rather than being food gatherers. Every social system uses this principle. Thousands of years ago people diverted streams to bring water to fields. Instead of carrying water in pots, let gravity do it. They were already getting started with automation. As people become more intelligent with the use of tools, this can hardly be called a "stowaway from capitalism." If people live within capitalist social relationships, that's capitalism.

[RGacky3]

anyway, what i meant is, what a lot american refers has the american dream is more likely to remain a dream in a capitalist system than in a communist one, where that dream is more likely to become common for everyone.


I'm not sure what you mean here, can you rephrase it please?


i started this discussion beccause i often hear on the radio the whole american system, american dream argument, that what people are spoonfed with by the media, that if you work more, work harder, you can have your own stuff, your own house etc etc etc.


But, that dream is pretty much irrelivent to talk about, nowerdays no one believes it, and its really just a slogan anyway, its not even an argument, nor is it ment to be.


i think its important to keep in mind that this whole concept of dream, what most north american desire is fully compatible with marxism.


You still hav'nt proven that there is any north american desire that is'nt a european desire, or a south AMerican desire also.


I don't know if that is quite true. The "great recession" is affecting about 10% of the American people. The rest really didn't notice it happened. Some people did loose their jobs and were hit with problems, to be sure and those that "overbought" in the Real Estate market were sometimes caught in financial difficulty but for most people the "Recession" was just some stories in the news paper.

How far up your ass did you need to look for that 10% number? If it was'nt from there where did you get it?

Even if you did'nt loose your job your gonna get affected, you might have to take a pay cut, you might loose some benefits, you have job insecurity, maybe a family member did, btw, that 10% is people still going looking formally. ALso anyone that had savings in mutual funds lots a lot or pensions. So really unless you have numbers or facts, you got nothing.


All that is eminently achievable in America today. It takes hard work and time. Home ownership has actually been increasing since the 1960s*


How is it MORE achievable in America than anywhere else?


Job stability is a problem--but as the market changes old jobs gow away, but new ones are added. One of the problems with guarenteed jobs is that it doesn't conform to changes in the market and slows and ossifies growth and innovation. While there might be individual problems with that pattern--it helps society as a whole grow and expand.


Keep in mind that when your saiying changes in the market, and what slows and ossifies growth and innovation, what your really saying is "not useful to the rich anymore," whats what the market means.

But as for the other stuff yeah, many old jobs go, and new jobs are added, but its ALWAYS done for the benefit of the ruling class, for example if theres a company with 10 workers, and there only need sto be 6, is everyone gonna get to work less and keep their pay because its so efficient its great? No 4 are gonna get sacked and the other 6 are gonna work just as hard, OR its gonna grow and get other companies workers sacked, either way the workers take the hit first.

But the big issue I want explained to me is how is America different? I hear it all the time (from Bud), HOW?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

the availability of space for the expansion of new residential developments consisting of single family homes. In the mid-20th century, these were in fact ubiquitous for the most part only in North America.

I hope you aren't suggesting those are a good thing.

There's nowhere to go today to escape from the clutches of shopping malls, parking lots and single-family housing sprawl. It's a cancer of the earth.

[Bud Struggle]

I hope you aren't suggesting those are a good thing.

There's nowhere to go today to escape from the clutches of shopping malls, parking lots and single-family housing sprawl. It's a cancer of the earth.

And they are highly wasteful of resources.

But that's a problem of aesthetics not economics. People do like owning their little square corner of Mother Earth.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't know if that is quite true. The "great recession" is affecting about 10% of the American people. The rest really didn't notice it happened. Some people did loose their jobs and were hit with problems, to be sure and those that "overbought" in the Real Estate market were sometimes caught in financial difficulty but for most people the "Recession" was just some stories in the news paper.These kinds of events usually expose trends that have been going on for some time, so I don't think the recession itself is responsible for everything, but I think when things like this happen, suddenly the same people who've been saying the economy is great for the last decades acknowledge some of the structural changes that have happened in the economy.

The trend towards urbanization and away from small landowners had been happening long before the 1930s, but the depression/war period are usually described as the point where this change happened because this was the decisive time when there was no going back to the old kind of America.


All that is eminently achievable in America today. It takes hard work and time. Home ownership has actually been increasing since the 1960s*While rates have remained more or less the same as in the 1960s, families now take on debt and many are 2-income homes - this was not the case in 1960. And being underwater and having a home is not the American Dream. Like I said, earlier, the dream is to have your own home so you have no one controlling you or holding things over you... this is not the case if you are in debt. If the American Dream included having a home that you were in debt for life over, then renting a home would also be considered part of the American Dream.


A smaller percentage of Americans owned their own homes in the 4th quarter of 2009 than at any time since 2000. In the 4th quarter 67.2% of Americans owned their own home, down from 67.6% in the third quarter and two full percentage points below the peak set in the fourth quarter of 2004.
As the first graph below shows (from Calculated Risk (http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/)), the homeownership rate rose steadily throughout the late 1960s and 1970s, rising from under 63% in 1965 to just short of 66% by 1980. The super high interest rates needed to slay the inflation dragon took their toll, however, and by the end of 1986, the rate had fallen all the way back to 63.5%.

We then spent a decade with the homeownership rate hovering around 64%. In the late 1990’s the rate soared, eventually peaking at 69.2%. Since then the rate has been falling at about the same rate it did in the early 1980s, with the bulk of the decline happening since the third quarter of 2006. Homeownership has always been part of the “American Dream,” and now that dream is slipping away for many Americans.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/186097-u-s-home-ownership-rates-continue-to-fall


2/3s of the population owning theor own home isn't that bad in any society. Job stability is a problem--but as the market changes old jobs gow away, but new ones are added. One of the problems with guarenteed jobs is that it doesn't conform to changes in the market and slows and ossifies growth and innovation. While there might be individual problems with that pattern--it helps society as a whole grow and expand.No, it helps profits. This also exposes how the interests of ordinary workers and the interests of business are not compatible. In the drive for profits, the short-term gain is more important than long-term planning, stability, or the interests of the population.

I think that even capitalist economists are beginning to state that an economy focused on the financial sector has actually weakened the economic foundations of the economy and many argue that we need to re-invest in manufacturing in order to increase exports and balance trade deficits.

So yes, being able to toss people's lives into the air in order to adapt to changes in the market is essential for near-term profits, but it also is what causes crisis for capitalism as a whole and what makes life unstable for workers.

[Che a chara]

That's why they call it the American Dream, you have to be asleep to experience it. Well for the majority of us anyway.

It's just a term coined to champion and promote capitalism, but you have to disconnect yourself from your surroundings and reality and be a rich exploiting fucker to lay any claim to the myth.

[Burn A Flag]

The part of the American constitution or the American dream that irks me most is how the pursuit of happiness bit is interpreted by cappies. They think it means they should be able to get rich to be happy. Pursuit of happiness is a good thing. But gathering huge amounts of capital shouldn't fall under pursuit of happiness, it should fall under greed.

[Che a chara]

The part of the American constitution or the American dream that irks me most is how the pursuit of happiness bit is interpreted by cappies. They think it means they should be able to get rich to be happy. Pursuit of happiness is a good thing. But gathering huge amounts of capital shouldn't fall under pursuit of happiness, it should fall under greed.

The American Constitution has been distorted by many American pro-capitalists, especially the Christian right-wing (Tea Party etc..), who don't practice what they preach. Greed, selfishness and individualism is all they purport, and it's all under the banner of the 'American Dream' and the 'Founding Fathers'.

Makes you sick.